Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hungary nuclear plant cuts output because of warm Danube waters

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 83 posts

Re: Hungary nuclear plant cuts output because of warm Danube waters

#41

Post by jacquesm »

unglaublich wrote: post #30
taylodl wrote: post #21

Nuclear power plants and coal-fired power plants work off the same principle: Use the heat to boil water to create steam, run the stream through a steam turbine, and condense the steam back to water. This water is continually recycled throughout the system. The river water is used to condense the steam back to water and then the water is discharged back to the river - warmer than it came in. If the water coming in fr…

We don't talk about it, because we want to get _away_ from igniting huge amounts of underground carbon-based material and putting it straight in the atmosphere. We want to move to methods of power generation that do _not_ significantly upset the delicate balance of a livable planet. Continuing adding more carbon to the atmosphere is only worsening the situation.

Not talking about something doesn't mean it's gone.

Re: Hungary nuclear plant cuts output because of warm Danube waters

#42

Post by Retric »

unglaublich wrote: post #23
domenkozar wrote: post #17

Note that warm waters is a typical strawman argument against nuclear power. These are rare anomalies and there's dry-cooling of nuclear power plants (although it's less efficient and costs more).

Plus, it's a design parameter in a performance/cost trade-off. It's _designed_ to not work at full power at this heat, because that was thought to be the ideal trade-off. Maybe it still is, maybe they underestimated the occurrence of high water temperature incidents, but in any case it's a consciously designed safe state.

Sure, but such mitigation strategies mean even higher costs for nuclear power which is by far its largest problem.

It’s clearly possible to make a great deal of nuclear power safely, just not as cheaply as similarly environmentally friendly alternatives. Electric utilities prefer to spend less on battery backed Solar etc because of all the little details that aren’t obvious until you really study what’s involved.

Re: Hungary nuclear plant cuts output because of warm Danube waters

#43

Post by cygx »

domenkozar wrote: post #17

Note that warm waters is a typical strawman argument against nuclear power. These are rare anomalies and there's dry-cooling of nuclear power plants (although it's less efficient and costs more).

These are rare anomalies

Note that partial shutdowns due to excessive heat happen regularly in France, e.g. in 2018, 2019 and 2022. The problem's been around for a while, see e.g. this article [1] from 2009 that also mentions the heatwave of 2003, where regulators had to grant special exemptions to allow discharging 30°C water into waterways, well past the 24°C limit.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20110612153407/http://business.t...

Re: Hungary nuclear plant cuts output because of warm Danube waters

#45

Post by dragonwriter »

domenkozar wrote: post #17

Note that warm waters is a typical strawman argument against nuclear power. These are rare anomalies and there's dry-cooling of nuclear power plants (although it's less efficient and costs more).

> Note that warm waters is a typical strawman argument against nuclear power.

A strawman is a false opposition argument set up to argue against, so, no, its not. I am not even sure what you are trying to say, but “strawman” isn’t it.

Also, most proposed new reactors a aren’t dry-cooled and the arguments, which include cost, for nuclear don’t assume that higher cost option.

Re: Hungary nuclear plant cuts output because of warm Danube waters

#46

Post by nradov »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #28
unglaublich wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's perfectly able to do so, but not at full power without heating up the river so much it would hurt organisms in there. Even then, it _could_ have been designed to do so - through more flow - but it's just a design parameter that was optimized in a cost/performance trade-off.

Cost performance tradeoffs aren't some minor thing. If you cannot produce energy at a cost effective level, you might as well not produce it at all. The theoretical capabilities of the thing are not relevant if the economics of them don't work.

Well sort of. Reliable base load power (nuclear, coal, gas, hydroelectric) has become essential to modern civilization in a way that transcends economics. If we can't keep the lights on then nothing else matters. Thus, competent governments will find ways to keep those plants running regardless of cost or environmental impacts. Those that don't will end up as failed states like what is happening to South Africa right now.

Re: Hungary nuclear plant cuts output because of warm Danube waters

#47

Post by xattt »

unglaublich wrote: post #23
domenkozar wrote: post #17

Note that warm waters is a typical strawman argument against nuclear power. These are rare anomalies and there's dry-cooling of nuclear power plants (although it's less efficient and costs more).

Plus, it's a design parameter in a performance/cost trade-off. It's _designed_ to not work at full power at this heat, because that was thought to be the ideal trade-off. Maybe it still is, maybe they underestimated the occurrence of high water temperature incidents, but in any case it's a consciously designed safe state.

Can future designs have the operating temp shifted in order to accommodate warmer waters?

Re: Hungary nuclear plant cuts output because of warm Danube waters

#48

Post by troupo »

cygx wrote: post #43
domenkozar wrote: post #17

Note that warm waters is a typical strawman argument against nuclear power. These are rare anomalies and there's dry-cooling of nuclear power plants (although it's less efficient and costs more).

These are rare anomalies Note that partial shutdowns due to excessive heat happen regularly in France, e.g. in 2018, 2019 and 2022. The problem's been around for a while, see e.g. this article [1] from 2009 that also mentions the heatwave of 2003, where regulators had to grant special exemptions to allow discharging 30°C water into waterways, well past the 24°C limit. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20110612153407/ht…

> Note that partial shutdowns due to excessive heat happen regularly in France, e.g. in 2018, 2019 and 2022.

And they affect a very small number of plants and energy output. The largest disruption so far has been when French government finally got its head out of its butt and stopped a few plants for long overdue maintenance

Re: Hungary nuclear plant cuts output because of warm Danube waters

#49

Post by epistasis »

domenkozar wrote: post #17

Note that warm waters is a typical strawman argument against nuclear power. These are rare anomalies and there's dry-cooling of nuclear power plants (although it's less efficient and costs more).

These are as rare as the week long events of low wind. Meaning that we must plan for nuclear curtailment just as we must plan for unusual wind weather: with backup generation and with storage.

Trying to brush aside legitimate engineering challenges as "not real" seems far too common among nuclear advocates. Which is my guess that their construction projects fail so often; the engineering and logistics and construction are significant challenges that are not taken seriously enough.

If the nuclear industry took engineering and problem solving as seriously as those in solar and wind, we would probably have a lot more nuclear around, a lot more successful construction projects, and nuclear that was cheap enough to build.

Re: Hungary nuclear plant cuts output because of warm Danube waters

#50

Post by onemoresoop »

akamaka wrote: post #35
domenkozar wrote: post #17

Note that warm waters is a typical strawman argument against nuclear power. These are rare anomalies and there's dry-cooling of nuclear power plants (although it's less efficient and costs more).

Creating heat to turn into electricity is an outdated 19th century idea at this point. Now that we’ve mastered the technology to turn ambient energy directly into electricity, traditional nuclear reactors are an overly complex technological dead end.

Though it seems inefficient why don't we see alternative methods take over?
Post reply on HN